I did a small fix that should work for now, but anything that you or anyone can add to it, please do.NSmyth15:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If you want to get hyper-technical, you could make the case it started with the Japanese invasion of China. But I don't think we need to get that in-depth, at least for now.--Dave3172 15:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It says: "relatively weak United Kingdom." This would be incorrect, considering it still owned the world's largest empire, ever, at or around its peak at the start of the war.

Britain had a large Empire, but like a modern Monarch it had little power. Canada's alligence ot Britain is to their credit as they could have stayed out. India and Australia had little choice as they were involved by the war in Asia. Most of the remaining British possessions were in southern and eastern Africa will less direct involvement.

Two mistakes in the above paragraph. (1) The so-called Empire: the dominions, ie Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand were completely free to make their own decisions by 1939. (Statute of Westminster 1931, says something like: ".....no law hereafter passed by the Parliament of Great Britain shall extend to any of the said dominions otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion.") (2)The Australians were not involved in any "war in Asia" until after Pearl Harbor. Australian forces were in action against the Axis by 1940, and heavily engaged against Rommel, and in Greece and Crete. Aust. forces were recalled to fight Japan, much against Churchill's wishes. I also know that East African troops were involved in 1940-42) (Can't cite that one...my mother nursed them, though, and had anecdotes). Japan did not attack south east Asia, Dutch East Indies etc. until AFTER Pearl Harbor.AlanE 22:45, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Interesting; maybe we can fit this image in the text somewhere to clarify India volunteers fighting to liberate themselves from the British Empire. Rob Smith 22:35, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Where are the sources?

Where are the sources? This article needs sources and is part of our article improvement drive listed on the main page. Conservative 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Overhaul needed

This article needs an overhaul, and my suggestion would be to separate it into sections according to year, similar to my American Civil War series of articles. In short, I would gut this one, rename it "World War II: Prelude in Europe", then go into detail about the conditions which led to that war, and follow it by "World War II: Europe, 1940"; "1941", etc, with a separate series of articles concerning the Pacific Theater. It would be more than a dozen separate articles, which would take a lot of time, but it would be worth it in the end. Karajou 01:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Idea?

I think the article could be improved if World War II had a symbol of some sort like the American Civil War has. Just an idea. Additioner 15:50, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Britain staying in the war

I added a fact tag on the following line:

Indeed it would appear that the, seemingly foolish, decision of the relatively weak United Kingdom to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard

I don't believe that there was ever any expectation that Britain would not remain in the war. Hitler and his generals understood that Fortress Europa would not be tenable without the conquering of Britain. If you have information to the contrary, I would like to see a cite about it.

I will have to come back to you on this. However, there were incidents such as soldiers discarding their guns once evacuated from Dunkirk , they thought the war was over and they had lost. Equally, one of Churchills famous speeches at this time was telling people that the war was still on, as it was far from clear. Stevendavy 00:49, August 2007 (EDT)

Please sign all posts, and I reverted your last change due to misleading edit notes. If you state you add a citation, do so, but do not make other key changes in the article. --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 12:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, forgot to sign the talk page. I thought that I did comment on each of the changes to show what each was. I also added a citation to the change of Alliance to Non-Aggression pact, which it certainly was. Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance. I will unwatch the article and leave it alone, as apparently making good edits and adding citations are less important than signing a talk page post (which I was correcting as you undid my edits, btw.) Boomcoach 12:59, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

The Battle of Britain and The Blitz were sort of contemporanious although the Blitz lasted longer.Put simply; the B of B was the attempt by Germany to wipe out the RAF, so opening the way for invasion. The Blitz was the saturation bombing of London and other major cities. They overlapped. Sept 7 1940 is the day Goering assumed command and ordered the switch from airfields to cities. Yet the B of B went through October. The Blitz never refers to Allied raids into Germany. (I'm scanning Churchill's memoirs here.)AlanE 17:55, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

opening the way for invasion

yes and no; Germany simply never had enough ships to put the size of a force needed across the Channel, neither was it in the budget to do so. RobS 12:22, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

The English would know that. They were aware of "Sea Lion" and the build up across the channel; and Whilst Churchill stated his increasing confidence that an invasion would not take place, or would not then succeed; if the RAF had been wiped out there was real danger of it being on the cards. The opening sentence of Chapter XVI "The Battle of Britain" in Volume II is: "Our fate now depended upon victory in the air." AlanE 01:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, this is all the "coulda woulda shoulda" school of historiography. In the final analysis, it was obvious when Hitler allowed the Brits to escape at Dunkirk he had no intention of ever invading England with land forces; what sense did it make to allow them to escape, when they had their back to the wall on the shores of Dunkirk, only to go fight them again on their home turf? If the Germans had destroyed the British forces on the beaches of Dunkirk, or captured them all, yes, then an invasion of Britain with limited manpower was possible. RobS 14:31, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Utter rubbish, Hitler knew he had to conquer the British. I agree that Dunkirk was more down to the Luftwaffe wanting to destroy the BEF on the ground than anything else, but the main victory at Dunkirk was the initing of the British people in a common belief that despite the lack of ANY help from anywhere, we must carry on the fight against Hitler and win the war. With the USA still seeking to appease Hitler in anyway they could, the British people assumed we would fight alone. Scrumpy 15:31, 12 Dec 2007 (GMT)

the main victory at Dunkirk was the initing of the British people in a common belief that despite the lack of ANY help from anywhere, we must carry on the fight...

Huh? Main victory? A total route is a main victory. Yes, recycling wartime propaganda for domestic consumption once again. Fact: Hitler spared the lives of these soldiers. Is that utter rubbish, too? Rob Smith 16:08, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Good morning. Yep...Hitler hesitated. That's been chewed over many times by people infinitely more knowledgable and better recourced than I am. And smarter. Hitler did beeall for six weeks after Dunkirk. He didn't want to invade. He hoped the Brits would yield. He gave them every chance to. Yet, on July 16 he issued "War Directive No. 16", ordering preparations for an invasion - in effect initiating 'Sealion". He still hoped that Britain would sorta, um, disappear. The effectiveness of the RAF over Dunkirk had given everyone pause for thought. Was Sealion and all the memos and diary entries and directives some gigantic feint, or hoax? Within weeks the Germans were grabbing barges from as far away as the eastern Baltic and anything else that could carry troops across the Channel. I think he had to have a go. As much as he could hope that America would stay away, he realised that the "Bases for Destroyers" deal would strengthen Britain and sooner or later America would become an active belligerant. And at the same time he was desperately working towards a "Tripartite Agreement" (Germany, Italy, Japan) to keep the US looking over its shoulder, and working just as hard at persuading Spain to join up. (But let's not mention Portugal -:)) Yeah. Hitler was ambivalent about an invasion, but all the preparations were put in train, and also....why would he have unleashed such a storm at the RAF and the Channel installations if no invasion was planned. I can see a bit of both sides min this. Maybe i'm a shoulda woulda shoulda sorta bloke. I like the "on the other hand" view of history.(Oh and one more thing. My mother was in a medical unit in the BEF and was strafed more than once on the way to the coast. She was taken off with the last of the wounded a few days (I think) before the final evacuation. Two or three weeks later she was at the set up of one of those great manors as a hospital for the sick relatives of VIPs. A month after it was operational it was suddenly abandoned, and everyone ended up in the Midlands somewhere. News of an impending invasion? Or just of an impending air war? Probably neither, but who knows. AlanE 17:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Continuing the "coulda woulda shoulda" school, Sea Lion was all bluff, and diversionary. Hitler overruled the Generals who recommended finishing off the British forces at Dunkirk, cause otherwise it might turn around bite you in the butt, which it eventually did. But Hitler was fighting a propaganda campaign; he knew Britain did not want War, the people did not, Chamberlain didn't, nor the Duke of Windsor. To Hitler at this point, the skirmish was a "frisch, froelich krieg" with Britain, and the two would eventually see eye-to-eye on Soviet Bolshevism. He already had the continental French manpower which made up the SS Charlemagne Division, among others, working for him. Hitler did not anticipate the stubbornness of a Churchill, who would risk total war to the finish. Until the day Hitler went down in the basement and blew his brains out, he never understood why Britain opposed him. RobS 17:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

RobS, where did you get the expression "frisch, froelich krieg" from? You used more than once, but I have never encountered this phrase anywhere else before. It reminds me of the mood at the beginning of WWI, but not exactly of WWII. If you have a source for this expression, I'd be more than grateful. User:Order June 7.

I think I first heard it regarding the regarding the Battle of Sadowa, probably in Gordon Craig's, Politics of the Prussian Army, a book I'd recommend to any serious student. And even if I recall correctly, Craig says the term or idea was fluent in Prussian military thinking prior to Sadowa. RobS 20:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Correct spelling should be "frisch, froehliche krieg", also "frisch-froehliche krieg" is found in some search engines. [1][2] This may be a good subject for an entry. Also sabre rattling is another I'd like to do; the newspeak use of it doesn't have a clue what its original meaning is, and is distorted. RobS 20:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Order, you are absolutely correct. Look at this babelfish translation, for example, from a German language article entitled "First World War",

On 28 June 1914 Franz Ferdinand and its wife were shot in Sarajewo by conspirator hand. That became the trip the First World War. I do not want to describe its process here, but to mention nevertheless three things: 1. It did not become the dreamed of short, freshmerry war[3]RobS 20:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

You may well be right. I would have to do a lot of research to catch up with your knowledge. The thing is though...what should a Consevapedia article give as the causes of or the reson for The Battle of Britain? AlanE 17:52, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Causes? Whew...I'm still just shooting from the hip off the top of my head decades old knowledge I haven't studied in awhile...I'd say Germany's attempt to bring England under submisssion after England decided to continue the war under Churchill, but I'd need good sources to explain that. RobS 18:04, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I am almost tending towards the scenario wherein Hitler says to the Luftwaffe: "OK then, have a go. If you're successful we may invade. I'll get things going in case". One thing I saw was something about him giving them 8 days to wipe out the RAF. (Almost a "famous last words thing", eh?)I think later the Luftwaffe was thinking two weeks to a month. And certainly he would have considered that id he was successful and the RAF was destroyed, he would not have to invade....England may have yielded then. CheersAlanE 19:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I think the whole matter of Hitler wanting to invade England (or for that matter the United States) is exaggerated. It never was in the cards. And the events at Dunkirk prove it. Had Hitler taken prisoners at Dunkirk rather than allow them to escape, he could have launched an invasion using basically a naval flotilla similiar to the one the Brits used to escape Dunkirk, to occupy Britain, probaly with less less 80,000 men. But the truth is, they simply did not have enough ships to mount a Normandy style invasion, under fire, against Britain. Hitler viewed it as a propaganda war, and always fully expected Britain to join the alliance against the Soviet Union, which in fact it did, after Hitler's death. RobS 19:32, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. Sure, there was no way the Staes were under threat from him. But Britain? I don't know. I don't know enough, and it would take me too long to read up sufficiently. Some where between the two of us is the answer. Gotta go.AlanE 19:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Hitler viewed it basically as a propoaganda campaign. He wrote a whole chapter on propaganda in Mien Kampf, marvelling and admiring how effective British propaganda, without bullets, was in WWI. This was given high priority in Nazi Germany, Goebbels Ministry was built on, and modeled after British propaganda (state run BBC). Hitler could never understand why Britain didn't make common-cause with Germany against the USSR, always couldn't understand what they expected to gain. Many Brits as well, never thought the War was worth the effort expended, during it and after. And Britain had absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to loose. In fact, while being a victor, they lost everything, i.e. the British Empire.

This brings us to a discusssion of the Arsenal of Democracy, and Churchill's "give us the tools, and we'll finish the job" speech. In 1940, the US was adament about remaining neutral. The Arsenal of Democracy, for US domestic consumption, meant the US would get invovled in building weapons, but not supply manpower, i.e. bloodshed. This was extremely controversial at the time. Churchill's speech was intended as a reassurance, if the US would amend the Neutrality Act, and allow Lend Lease shipments, Britain had the manpower (which survived Dunkirk), but only needed the tools (weapons) from American factories (the Arsenal of Democracy). This was the propaganda sold to the American public, that the US could take sides, arm Britain, yet not expend any manpower or bloodshed of its own. Hitler evidently believed it as well, never thinking American troops would assemble in Great Britain to invade someday. Or if it did happen, it would take years and years to build the ships, ship the material and manpower, and finally mount an invasion.

That is why, in 1940, Hitler let the British Expediationary Force slip away at Dunkirk. To him, it was only a "brisk, jolly little war", like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. And Total War against Britain was not in his mind. Total War against the USSR was, but he would have liked to have Britain as an ally in such a venture. And whether or not Britain was an ally, didn't disrupt his plans. And truth be told, Hitler always admired and respected Great Britain, but could not figure out why they would destroy themselves and their Empire to gain nothing. RobS 21:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Portugal was neutral but benevolent TOWARDS Britain. Indeed, the oldest extant defence treaty is that between Portugal and England, made in 1373. At about the same time that America declared a demarcation line between the Eastern and Western Hemispheres with US patrolling the Western and keeping GB aware of all Axis sightings, (April 1941) Britain was organising, in response to requests from Portugal, a takeover of the Azores, with further plans for Cape Verde Islands and Grande Canary; all Portuguese territories that neither Portugal nor Britain wanted to fall into German hands. (Refer SBS World Book (Portugal) and Churchill’s War Memoirs: Vols. II & III.)AlanE 00:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Sure. Everybody was on the winning side once the War was over, even the neutrals. RobS 00:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Um...in 1943 Churchill himself visited Lisbon...not a place to be if it is pro-German. That is well over a year before the war finished and before an Allied Victory was assured. Before the Americans came in, Portugal had given the Allies "use" of their Atlantic islands. I am not sure what you are getting at. These pro-English gestures, and others were not "once the war was over".

Portugal was neutral and the seat of much espionage and disinformation activity. When the Goebbels wished to transmit a line of disinformation, Lisbon newspapers were always targerted knowing the Allies would pick it up in hopes it had some degree of credibility. Portugal figured prominently into the "Double Cross" cross system. The famous case how British intelligence handcuffed a briefcase with supposed invasion plans to a corpse and let it wash up on shore in Portugal, knowing the disinformation would get back to Berlin after Portugeese investigators examined the corpse is well known. RobS 12:37, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. And the Actor Leslie Howard died when a plane was targeted by the Germans between Lisbon and London as Churchill may have been on board. Lisborn was walking a fine line between London, Berlin, and Madrid. And many in authority were pro-Nazi. But the Portuguese Gov't did offer Britain the use of the Azores - of immense strategic value like Iceland. If you wish to revert my removal, do so, but surely a "pro-Axis leadership would preferred Germany to have their Atlantic territories, instead of Britain. Now, its not yet 5 am and the coffee has stopped gurgling. CheersAlanE 14:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes that's all true. I don't recall all the details how the Allies got to use the Azores, but after Stalingrad, virtually everybody in the know knew which way the wind was blowing and who was going to win anyway. Besides, the Germans never had sufficient naval forces to hold the Azores, the only interesting question would be was it before Stalingrad or after? and if before, what impact did it have in facilitating transport of troops & material for the North African campaign, and to what extend was Allied occupation of the Azores visiable (by visable, I mean that the Germans knew it was done with the consent of Protugal, OTOH, was it forcible in that Portugal was powerless to prevent it) so the Germans basically knew Portugal was abetting the Allies.

In Goebbels Diaries, speaking from memory, I recall one entry where Goebbels was all aflutter becuase some Lisbon newspaper picked up some disinformation they were trying to get Britain to act upon, but I don't recall the specifics. RobS 15:29, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

You are no doubt right again. I am looking at books I have hardly opened in 40 years! In a memo from "Prime Minister to Foreign Office" dated 11 Aug. '41, discussing talks with Roosevelt on the Atlantic Charter he writes (inter alia): ".....he (Roosevelt) would be willing to come to the aid of Portugal in the Atlantic islands...." (My italics) This implies Portugal desiring that aid. This is after the invasion of Russia but well before the rot set in.

Can we agree to differ on this. You seem to be anti Portugal. I suppose I am trying to balance that. Certainly, many Portuguese, including Government, were pro-German. Many weren't. We can go back and forth for ever. As I said; if you want to revert.....AlanE 16:08, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm just carrying this all off the top of my head, and have never really delved into the intricacies of Portugese neutrality. Certainly it was a popular vacation spot for continental Europeans during the Nazi occupations elsewhere to get away from the War, and more easily accessible than it was for Allies. Portugal I would assume was incapable of militarily defending the Azores if the Allies really needed it for the North African campaign, so they may have allowed the Allies to pretend to take it forcibly, while at the same time claiming neutrality. I rather doubt there was a back room agreement to allow it before the disaster for the Germans at Stalingrad, but it is plausible, I suppose. OTOH, the Germans certainly would have wanted Portugal for U-boat operations, but they saw certain advantages to respect neutrality. RobS 16:17, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, yes, yes and , um, yes. I am trying to finish an article on King John before the day gets going and family takes over. (We all know he was a villain.) All I know is Churchill considered Portugal onside. As early as 1940 he was discussing Portugal as, if not exactly a friend but at least not an enemy. Portugal were also incapable of defending their Atlantic islands if Germany decided to invade - which they planned to do, but I don't know when. AhHA! Same letter as above (Aug. '41)says: "The President has received a letter from Dr. Salazar, in which it is made clear that he is looking to the Azores as a place of retreat for himself and his Government in the event of German aggression against Portugal, and that his country's age-long alliance with England leads him to count on British protection during his enforced stay on these islands". That can be considered in various ways, I suppose.AlanE 17:01, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

When I was looking for some information about the German opinions about Britain staying in the war, I found an interesting discussion about a book by Lidell Hart. He interviewed some of the German generals at Nurenburg. Several of them said that Hitler held the Germans back at Dunkirk, when the generals wanted to move in and finish off the Expeditionary Force. According to them, Hitler thought that, with France defeated, Britain might be willing to join with Germany against Russia. While these were comments made well after the fact, BLH points out that when awaiting trial, it would make more sense for the generals to put themselves in the position of saving the British troops, instead of giving that role to Hitler. I know that before the war broke out, there was a small group of Britons that supported the idea of fascism being preferable to communism. I wonder if Hitler, who clearly had agents in pre-war Britain, made a complete misread of this position.

As a side note, there were Nazi sympatheizers in high circles in Britain. Hitler himself had strong connections in Britain. This would certainly make sense. Also, in Hitler's way of thinking, way would Britain oppose Italy, Germany, USSR etc.... it would be and it would be easier to control the country quietly (as France or Denmark) rather than undertake an very awkward and possibly difficult (that was never test, of course) to control nation.Stevendavy 10 August 2007

I hate to cite WP, but read their entry on Edward VIII of the United Kingdom (later the Duke of Windsor). This is why Rudolf Hess flew to England. Many Nazi's bosses thought they had enough influence in Britian to keep them out from continuing the war. As you cited above about Dunkirk, you're not really addressing the major historical question around that event: Why did Hitler allow them to escape? Why did Hitler counter the advise of his General's an not take them all POW's? Hitler never could understand in his mind why Britain took sides with the Soviet against the united powers of Western Europe. Contrary to what is taught in the history books, under the Third Riech, every single nation of Western Europe contributed both its manpower, and its defense budgets to fighting Soviet Communism in the Soviet Union. When the War ended of course, we know what happened; they all blamed the Germans and claimed they were all part of the Resistance. The facts are, France contributed more to the Nazi war effort from 1940-1944 than it did to defend itself from 1939-1940. Rob Smith 12:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I do not have the BLH book mentioned, and I don't want to add something to an article based on a second hand quote, but I thought it was an interesting discussion. Boomcoach 07:35, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Liddell Hart is the primary source we should be using for this article. And yes, Hitler never reconciled in his mind why the English, racial cousins, would not join in the fight against Soviet Bolshevism. (In fact, there was an SS legion made up of Englishmen, the Legion of St. George, had about 50 English speaking Brits who fought in Russsia).

One of the interesting things in Liddell Hart's book regards the occupation of Norway; Hart points out how the charge of "waging aggressive war" against Norway at Nuremberg was hypocritical, given that Britain at the exact moment itself was moving to occupy an indenpendent, neutral country, only the Germans got there first. RobS 16:26, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

...and given the choice the Brits would have been welcomed with open arms, I would suggest. Britain did take over the Faroes and, whilst they took their guns with them, they were not unwelcome (as opposed to places where the British stayed longer...)Stevendavy

Immediate Causes

"The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the Japanese attacks on China, the United States..."

What? How is the Japanese attack on the United States an immediate cause of WWII? Is this some kind of joke?

According to the insular American view, WW2 only happened because Pearl Harbor was bombed.
Although remember they hid for 2 years, 3 months & 4 days from the original start of war, and were more than happy to appease Nazi Germany even after 7th December.

Despite the sinking of the Reuben Jones the US never wanted war with Hitler. It was Hitler who declared war on the USA.

Outline

Perhpas we need to develop a larger outline for the war. What appears here, is larely what can be referred to as the untied front, i.e. it only discusses the united front against axis powers, and moreless ignores the Soviet invasions of Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, etc. No discussion of the Soviet-Japanese front, Moaist and Comintern activities in the Far East, etc.

The united front, as far as the Anglo-American schools go, date the war from the beginning of Great Britian's involvement, Sept. 3, 1939, although the United States was not an active belligerent power in either Europe or the Far East. So, what I would propose is an opening section which briefly lists all the various major belligerencies that occurred since the war to end all wars, i.e. WWI & the failed Treaty of Versailles. This would be various Japanese wars, what we have finally come to call the Second Sino-Japanese War, Ethiopia, Spanish Civil War, Anschluss, Treaty of Munich, Communazi pact, Finnish War, etc. Rob Smith 01:24, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

What about australia?

It seems you have no information on Australia during WW2, this is quite dissapointing seeing as Australia comitted around 300 thousand troops to the war and at one stage held 1/3 of the line in europe against nazi germany, they also fought in africa against italy, as well as in the pacific against japan. Where was the information about the battle for PNG where 800 australian soldiers defeated 10 000 japanese?

Yours truly Ben.

True. I am Australian and hearing this, I'm not happy, I'm sure there should have been something about that a long time ago! --Mssb57 00:11, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Then add it. Easy.

Number one: Please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after your post. Number two: I would add it, but unfortunately I do not know enough about WWII to add any half-decent information in. --Mssb57 16:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Main image

Seems a little daft simply having a map of France as a representative image of WW2. Surely a picture of Hitler, the Blitz, Churchill or Pearl Harbour would be more symbolic and appropriate? I would have replaced it but I don't have media upload rights. Ajkgordon 08:45, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Far Eastern Theatre

I'll be working to improve this section, but I have to say, it's really disappointing as is. One paragraph to sum up the entire 3 1/2 year campaign against Japan, and three paragraphs on Soviet duplicity? C'mon.--Frey 09:47, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Holocaust

Nothing about the Holocaust? Nothing? How can we just write nothing about it? Daphnea 14:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

And nothing about the course of the Eastern Front? Daphnea 14:40, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

The Holocaust was a HUGE part about WWII and it made it the most henious war that has ever been or ever will be, and it's not there? KatanaGeldar 21:19, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

We have an extensive Holocaust entry. Feel free to add informative material as you think best.--Aschlafly 21:22, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Needs help

This article needs extensive work, especially on giving some actual details about the course of the war, something like Karajou's American Civil War articles. I will start working over next couple days when I get a chance, but it seems we need more details, especially for the Eastern Front (Soviets/Germans). The extent of coverage for the Eastern Front now is that they helped fend off the Germans long enough for the Americans to land in '44 and that they waited outside Warsaw. While I will not debate the truth of hte second, the first diminishes the importance of the Eastern Front, which was much larger and deadlier than the Western Front. I will try to work on this and add some material. ----ToJones 18:15, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

UK joined America?

"World War II was a global conflict fought between the Allied powers (led by the United States, but eventually including the Soviet Union, the British Commonwealth, the Republic of China, and many other nations)"
I think you'll find the UK was at war for 2 years before the USA joined the Allies. RichardJ 15:50, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

yes indeed, that's how it started but not how it was fought and not how it ended. RJJensen 15:55, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Any student reading this section will get the impression that the US was taking part in the war before the UK, Soviets and China. This is untrue. RichardJ 17:01, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Finland was never invaded

The article states that Finland was invaded, which is a bit misleading. Soviet troops were never stationed on Finnish ground permanently, and Finland retained sovereignity. Finland gave up 10% of it's land area, yes, but was never invaded by Soviets.

no, you have to do better. You should study up before criticizing--and never use words like "blatant lie" here. RJJensen 15:18, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, I deleted the 'blatant lie' part. But hey, the schools in Finland never taught us that we were invaded - because we weren't. Please remove that bit of information and refer to some history book for correction - I'm sorry, but I think the quality can be improved, and should be improved.

your schools lied to you. Finland gave up in March 1940 when the Soviets captured Viipuri and Finnish defenses collapsed. RJJensen 10:16, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

No, our schools did not lie. Losing the war and being invaded have a huge diffrence, you know? Finland surrendered, yes, due to several reasons, but was never invaded. Otherwisely we would still be under Soviet/Russian control, wouldn't we? Also, the Continuation War wouldn't have happened if Soviets would have invaded; of course the Finnish defence force would have been culled. So yes, it was a conflict, not an invasion. Please cease trying to tell me better of my own country's history - we do study it here, you know =D. (JK)

One of the reasons we have an encyclopedia is to explode myths and false stories, which indeed are taught in public schools. Anyone locked into what they were told at age 12 is unlikely to appreciate serious history. You might ask yourself how the Russians got on the north side of the Finnish defenses and forced a surrender if they did not invade.RJJensen 11:02, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Partition of Poland

The image used to illustrate the partition of Poland between the Nazis and the Soviets, File:Communazipact1.JPG‎, doesn't show that. Instead, it shows an early proposal for post-WWII Poland - note that East Prussia gets divided, with the eastern part "to Russia" and the western part "to Poland". The western border of the new Poland, in the middle of Silesia, is farther east than what was eventually agreed upon among the victors - I believe there was some confusion about which of two like-named rivers should become the new German-Polish border. Anyway, since the image is clearly inappropriate in this context, I removed it. Yoritomo 18:52, 11 December 2009 (EST)